POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

However, i believe one of the 3 INU's(Inertial Navigation Unit- the unit that generates the nav info) may be deferred, but it must be the center one,or moved to the center, leaving the left and right operable. But NOT all 3, or even 2, or the left or right. ONLY thecenter. Im taking all this from memory on the 767, but i believe it is accurate and correct.

You are correct. Capt Kolstad and I actually talked about this as well.

One of the IRU's can be deferred for domestic operations, but all 3 must be operating for international (Kolstad flew both).

Even if one IRU were inop and deferred, there is no reason for such a large error from the gate if the IRS were aligned. The airplane should have been grounded.

The most hilarious part of this all? A person who makes excuses for the govt story just uploaded an audio recording claiming "AA77" pushed back from gate D26. Through that recording they are essentially trying to tell us that the data analyzed in this thread clearly did not come from "AA77", as clearly the aircraft (if in fact an aircraft recorded this data), did not push from D26.

Apparently airport workers confirm that gate D26 was used for embarking.The problem is, given the lat/long data in this thread, that the FDR data allegedly from "Flight 77" is irreconcilable with anything from start to finish. Even the alleged boarding gate.

I asked myself the same question about the power used at the gate and found that while boarding an Auxiliary Power Unit is used.

Read it, thanks. I was noting that some APU's use tail exhausts. Kinda resembles what I saw in a frame by frame examination of the Naudet "fire mans" video. 767 have that sort of "closed slice" tail configuration. (|) as opposed to the video shows a: (o) tail. If so, then the Naudet video is showing an Airbus??? Or possibly an older or smaller 7(X)7 craft?

Anyways, I think you're right, Captain Scully's flight comes to mind, he had both engines cut from bird strikes. Power had to come from somewhere, to maintain attitude etc., for the Hudson river landing.

A friend of mine had engineers working the recovery, so I have first hand pictures of the Jet on the River some where on one of these computers or hard drives I can't seem to keep track of (lol).

Also worthy of note is that some aircraft don't use APU's but instead opt to use ground source electricity for pre engine start operations. Bet that generates paperwork.

i think all the passengers were killed with gas or taken off the planes & killed elsewhere

I've been giving some thought to the ideas that might be behind Northwoods "passenger presevation" and what might have been something like it in "Flight of the Bumble Planes"

What comes to mind is: "Selling Points"!!!

The need to not kill the passengers in Northwoods, would have been a powerful selling point, when trying to win approval for the operation to go forward. Of course, making this selling point, vastly complicated matters, because it forced a plane switch/substitution plan on the would be perps.

So, with all the questionable appearances/disappearances of planes, mix ups with tail numbers, switching of flights etc., that seems to go on on 9-11, I get a general feeling that perhaps the operation had to be sold to the powers that be. The critical element of skyjacked planes, would be a vastly easier "sell", if it could be shown that reasonable provision had been made, to safely obscure and protect the passengers, so that no one need actually die.

Thus we see this complex weave of mixed data regarding the planes, as the passengers were spirited out of harms way. Only thing is, the rest of the plan, the part that needed the least selling was the collapse of the towers. That, I believe, was supposed to have happened so early, that complete evacuation should have been easily accomplished.

Then, I would theorize, either things went horribly wrong, or some dastardly, high insider, had planned the switch all along. After all, once the towers had been hit, and skyjacked jets named as the cause, anyone who had approved the initial operational plans, was firmly locked in and along for the ride. The operation could then turn deadly, as opposed to the "clean" operation that had been sold. Once escape was prevented and the towers brought down, with the resultant deaths there, then the passengers who had been "saved", were now again at risk. Once it was learned there were deaths at the towers, the passengers could not be released.

At least, that's a reasonable theory that explains why passengers would need to switch planes and why planes would need to be switched. Someone or some people had to be appeased and/or appealed to, to get approval for the operation to go forward. Once the basics were approved, then other insiders, either decided to change things, or something went wrong and forced that changes be made, catching them all by surprise.

It's just a theory that occurred to me from all my reading, so hey, let's get it out there, because it's probably going to occur to somebody else.

interesting is how the plane appears unalligned for the takeoff being hundreds of meters from the runway, but then suddenly is almost exactly alligned (- there it is in the UnderTow's FDR data something like <30 meters off from the theoretical impact path through the lightpoles based on trackangle/GS taken back from the "impact point") to struck the Pentacon. ...maybe somebody other cared or it is the Mr. Farmer's famous inflight IRS allignment. (sarcasm)

Warren Stutt claimed that the "divergence" in the plotted path originated at the terminal. Now he's totally contradicting himself by dismissing the accuracy of it! Surely the lat/long would be more reliable/accurate while on the ground??

Even if this alleged communication between ATC and "Flight 77" were true, doesn't he realize that further "confirmation" of a "D26 departure" actually raises more problems for the authenticity and origin of the FDR? Well done Farmer...

ETA: Just saw your earlier post Rob..

QUOTE

In other words, an aircraft may have pushed from D26 and described as "AA77", but clearly it is not the same aircraft this data belongs.

So, the question now becomes, where is the data for the aircraft which pushed from D26?

QUOTE

Keep in mind, this is the morning bank out of Dulles. Aircraft are departing gates all over the place. It's morning rush hour. (which by the way, makes the above recording now offered by those who make excuses that much more hilarious).

Add to this the fact that there were no preflight checks (for example, due to an alleged "accident" with one of the tractors that pushes the planes back from the gates).

On the alleged contact with the cockpit (I'm not 100% if this is useful or not), in the same FBI interviews with ATC, this was shown..

QUOTE

PASCALE has been employed as a Flight Dispatcher with AA for approximately fourteen years, with twenty years total experience in aviation. PASCALE was the union representative for AA Flight Dispatchers PEGGY HOUCK and DON ROBINSON. HOUCK was the dispatcher for AA Flight 11, and ROBINSON was the dispatcher for AA Flight 77. On September 11, 2001, both dispatchers started their shifts at 6:00 a.m.. and their involvement in the pre-flight planning for Flights 11 and 77 was unknown. PASCALE had no personal knowledge regarding their contact with these flights, with PASCALE serving in an employee assistance capacity and providing the information below as background for help in understanding the duties of a dispatcher. From what he understood, neither HOUCK nor ROBINSON had any contact with the captain or crew of Flight 11 and Flight 77.

.....

The flight dispatcher and the captain were jointly responsible for the safe, legal operation of a flight, with both approving the flight plan. The flight dispatcher was involved in pre-flight planning, consisting of the "highway in the sky," the aircraft's fuel load, weather updates, navigational aids, and other aspects of the flight plan (OSS - push back and takeoff?). If the captain agreed with the flight plan, he or she signed off on it, with the flight dispatcher then releasing the flight. After the flight plan was approved by the flight dispatcher and the captain, neither individual could unilaterally deviate from the flight plan. If a problem arose after the joint approval any changes had to be authorized by both the flight dispatcher and the captain. These procedures were governed by regulations of the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

A captain would sometimes call with questions or might want a weather update however, if there were no problems or questions, a captain would not need to contact the dispatcher. For routine flights, the ...dispatcher and captain were oftentimes not in direct contact with ...one another. Regarding Flights 11 and 77, neither HOUCK nor..ROBINSON spoke with the respective crews prior to takeoff, apparently because there were no problems or questions with the flight plans. Both HOUCK and ROBINSON were on duty when these flights departed.

....

On September 11, 2001. HOUCK began her shift at 6:00a.m., working the desk responsible for the transcontinental flights. Regarding AA Flights 11 and 77, HOUCK was not involved in the pre-flight planning, which consisted of the flight path, fuel load, and other aspects of the flight plan. Because of the early morining departures for these flights, AA Dispatcher CHRIS RECK preplanned the flights, with RECK working the night shift until 6:00 a.m. It was unknown whether RECK communicated directly with the captain or crew of either flight; however, HOUCK doubted the occurrence of any such contact because the weather was good all across the country and because there was nothing unusual that wouldhave prompted questions from the flight crews

....

RECK could remember nothing out of the ordinary about the flight planning for Flight 11 and Flight 77. The weather across the country was great, and there was little reason for the flight crews to be calling with questions or problems. RECK did not talk with either crew during his shift, and everything was normal for Flight 11, Flight 77, and all other flights handled by RECK. There were also no ACARS messages from either Flight 11 or Flight 77 because both aircraft would have been parked with the engines off..

So far, I've found nobody (ETA: to clarify - nobody officially named or interviewed AFAIK) who was in contact with "Flight 77" apart from the rightly described dubious recording linked to by Farmer.

All 3 dispatchers on duty that morning denied making contact. Two of them pointing to Chris Reck as a possibility, which he denied. Even the union rep knew of nobody who contacted the alleged flight.

Why no interview notes with this guy (Farmer recording) or "pointing the FBI in the right direction" to see who made final contact with the "Flight 77" cockpit?

I gave Capt Kolstad another call regarding this issue. Procedures at American Airlines dictate IRS alignment on first flight of the day and every "Turn Check" (in between flights at the gate). If the IRS was not aligned (or could not be aligned), this is a "no-go" item at American Airlines. Meaning, the airplane should have been grounded until the IRS was fixed.

Ralph is in the process of trying to dig out his old checklists.

I have a few other calls out to my other American Airlines connections as well, so hopefully we can get documentation for this.

And as a followup to the above....

Courtesy Of Capt Ralph Kolstad...

(red highlight mine)

The aircraft which produced the data, if it were N644AA, should have never left the ground.

The aircraft which produced the data, if it were N644AA, should have never left the ground.

Good old Ralph eh? shows he still knows his stuff and gets it right, i wonder why it is that there is a always indiscrepencieswith the official data, well i guess of course this means it's all phony, first we had the black box data recorder for american 77too high too hit the pentagoose and now this too, what next will we find?

How many holes in the OCT do we need before it finally falls apart? How many more smoking guns do we need beforewe can finally get a new investigation? And before we can get some justice for the lives lost that day?

Hey Rob when you get time maybe you should do a video presentation on this that will give some people something to think about.

Of course it will only make more excuse makers come out of hiding in the bushes, i hope all the debunkers and detractors are readingthis right now and cringing, looks like the clock is ticking and time is running out for the OCT, get ready for an implosion.

"Then, I would theorize, either things went horribly wrong, or some dastardly, high insider, had planned the switch all along. After all, once the towers had been hit, and skyjacked jets named as the cause, anyone who had approved the initial operational plans, was firmly locked in and along for the ride. The operation could then turn deadly, as opposed to the "clean" operation that had been sold. Once escape was prevented and the towers brought down, with the resultant deaths there, then the passengers who had been "saved", were now again at risk. Once it was learned there were deaths at the towers, the passengers could not be released."

This is getting closer I reckon. I have had recurring nightmare of Pilots rushing into passenger areas in-flight saying they cannot fly the aircraft. That it is being flown for them. No communication at all outside.In the nightmare are men and women passengers who had previously worked on 'need to know' alterations to craft just like the ones they were on. The nightmare ends in the madness of their seeing each other in the craft and realizing their work had made the alterations fail-safe.,

There can be no doubt the conspirators creating this blackest of deeds capable of murder at this level. At any level. The behavior toward populations after 911 prove it.

"Then, I would theorize, either things went horribly wrong, or some dastardly, high insider, had planned the switch all along. After all, once the towers had been hit, and skyjacked jets named as the cause, anyone who had approved the initial operational plans, was firmly locked in and along for the ride. The operation could then turn deadly, as opposed to the "clean" operation that had been sold. Once escape was prevented and the towers brought down, with the resultant deaths there, then the passengers who had been "saved", were now again at risk. Once it was learned there were deaths at the towers, the passengers could not be released."

This is getting closer I reckon. I have had recurring nightmare of Pilots rushing into passenger areas in-flight saying they cannot fly the aircraft. That it is being flown for them. No communication at all outside.In the nightmare are men and women passengers who had previously worked on 'need to know' alterations to craft just like the ones they were on. The nightmare ends in the madness of their seeing each other in the craft and realizing their work had made the alterations fail-safe.,

There can be no doubt the conspirators creating this blackest of deeds capable of murder at this level. At any level. The behavior toward populations after 911 prove it.

It may help stop the nightmare to know that pilots, most likely would not complain to the passengers that they had lost control of the aircraft. If anything, they'd come back and ask for people with certain expertise to come forward. What they'd have needed looks more like a hacker, than a regular computer systems expert but either would do in a pinch. My choice? I'd probably go with the "snotty nosed wizz Kid" lol.

Murderous as the plans may be, at the stage where support for them is needed, to gain the authorizations required, they're usually presented as being as benign as possible. If they are murderous at the outset, that information is closely held by a few insiders, who, once authorized to go, then implement their ungodly plans, knowing that those who approved initially, must now go along and try to conceal their own involvement.

When congress went along with the "Iraq War Resolution", many of them are thought to have believed it was nothing more than an empty bluff. Thus, when Bush gave the order to actually invade, they'd have been horrified into silence, because their own hands were holding the bloody cloth.

haha ya or maybe they had a TomTom ...."your turn is approaching, turn here "

Imo, with the technology that was available, it is possible that all the planes could have been empty, remote controlled drones right from the gate. There could have been a "show" plane dispatched with passengers, and a "Go" plane dispatched elsewhere on the field from another gate possibly, that was pushed back, taxied, and then took off with no-one aboard. Or their could have been just the "go" plane drone, cuz we know the cell phone calls were bs, among most everything else we were told. We may very well be looking at the gate, taxi and take-off info of a militarized, fully modified and identically painted drone, built to carry out the nightmare we know as 9/11 and everything that resulted from it. But that is to be determined.

haha ya or maybe they had a TomTom ...."your turn is approaching, turn here "

Imo, with the technology that was available, it is possible that all the planes could have been empty, remote controlled drones right from the gate. There could have been a "show" plane dispatched with passengers, and a "Go" plane dispatched elsewhere on the field from another gate possibly, that was pushed back, taxied, and then took off with no-one aboard. Or their could have been just the "go" plane drone, cuz we know the cell phone calls were bs, among most everything else we were told. We may very well be looking at the gate, taxi and take-off info of a militarized, fully modified and identically painted drone, built to carry out the nightmare we know as 9/11 and everything that resulted from it. But that is to be determined.

I think that sounds like what probably happened,most likely scenario given all data analysed so far. Im very bad at maths and calculations but would be interested to know if the rate of climb after take off excludes any aircraft types i.e. only a military fast jet F15/F16 etc..? If this has already been established please point me in right direction. Some very interesting points of view on this thread.Good stuff! Thanks again to Rob et al for their tireless efforts and rigouress self criticism when looking at the FDR data released by the NTSB.Thanks.